Week in Review

Gays and lesbians have fought for same-sex marriage. Because they want to be like traditional couples. A man and a woman entering wedded bliss. With all of the legal and employer spousal benefits that come with it. Even while feminists decry the institution of marriage as enslaving women into a loveless relationship where women are cooks in the kitchen, maids in the house and whores in the bedroom.

Bradley Manning became Chelsea Manning after being arrested for leaking classified documents. Chelsea is now asking for the government to pay for hormone treatment therapy to become physically a woman. And that denying this costly treatment was cruel and unusual punishment.

I’ve just been reading an article about a woman in the north of England whose breast implants were paid for by strangers. In just three months, 23-year-old Gemini Smith from Northumbria raised the £4,450 needed to transform her from a 34A to a 34DD, and it’s all thanks to MyFreeImplants.com – or rather, the men who use it. This is a website for women who feel unhappy in the chest department but lack the funds to change it. They create a profile explaining why they would like breast implants and why they can’t afford them, and are given a dollar for each message they receive; men are invited to buy chat credits in order to send them messages, and are offered “… direct access to thousands of women seeking friendship and your help in obtaining the body they’ve always dreamed of”.

Should the taxpayers pay for breast implants, too? As having small breasts is causing some women pain in their lives. For they don’t feel as attractive as women with larger breasts. As men tend to look at women with larger breasts. Because men are pigs. Yet these women want these pigs to look at them. And suffer pain when they don’t.

One wonders where the feminists would fall on this issue. As providing free birth control is no more necessary for a healthy life than having breast implants. But women getting breast implants are seeking acceptance based on how attractive men find them. Which runs contrary to feminism. Much like feeding women free birth control so they can please as many men as possible sexually. Placing a woman’s sexuality at the core of her being. Again, something that kind of runs contrary to feminism. And the left.

Which makes the left’s obsession with same-sex marriage puzzling. As they are trying everything within their power to help women live without having to marry a man. While at the same time they are doing everything they can to help same-sex couples do what they try so hard to prevent women from having to do.

Week in Review

Hardcore feminists hate the institution of marriage. Unless it’s same-sex marriage. Then marriage is the greatest thing in the world. But when it’s the union of a man and a woman that’s another story. For all that the institution of marriage does is reduce the woman to a second-class citizen. A piece of property. Human property. A cook in the kitchen. A maid. And a whore in the bedroom. To serve their husbands disgusting sexual desires. Some militant feminists have gone so far as to call sex in marriage rape. Except for same-sex marriages, of course. Then it’s a beautiful expression of love between two people.

To make these feminists happy all married women should deny their husbands any sexual pleasure. They should be sexually abstinent. They should be asexual. So they are not a sexual object for their husbands’ depravity. But on the other hand, if they’re single women then they should explore every part of their sexuality. To enjoy every sexual pleasure there is no matter the social norm or taboo they break. To objectify whatever part of their bodies to pleasure a man. Outside of marriage that’s called empowerment. While inside a marriage it’s called rape. Unless it’s a same-sex marriage, of course. Feminists at a university are even helping young college women objectify, I mean, empower themselves (see Consent kits given to Vancouver students by Ada Slivinski posted 3/19/2014 on Vancouver 24 Hurs).

Bright pink boxes created by the Women’s Centre at Simon Fraser University are being distributed to spread the word about sexual consent and counter what is often termed “rape culture.”

Louise Mapleston, who represents the centre, said the initiative is about “making sure that when people have sex, they are feeling comfortable and they’re 100% excited.”

The package contains a condom, lubricant and a sexual Mad Lib, in which students can fill in the blanks of what form of sexual interaction they would like to engage in…

The Women’s Centre is run by a collective of volunteers and staff. The group self-identifies as pro-feminist, sex-positive, pro-choice, trans and intersex inclusive and anti-racist.

What form of sexual interaction they would like to engage in? Would this work in marriage, too? Would the sex inside of marriage not be rape if the wife filled out a sexual Mad Lib first?

Sex inside a marriage is a beautiful expression of love between two people. Casual sex with a random person is not. It is a physical experience only with no emotional connection. It’s just a hookup. Where guys can go from woman to woman depending on their tastes for the night. The girl next door? A cheerleader-type perhaps? Black? White? Asian? Hispanic. So many options. Thanks to all of those women empowering themselves.

And for the woman looking to get married and settle down to raise a family good luck. With the hookup culture so prevalent guys can satisfy their lust and then hang out with their friends. As the hookup culture has objectified women like nothing else. It’s so bad that a lot of men see no need to get married. For whenever they feel a sexual urge all they need to do is to hook up with some random woman. Satisfy that urge. And get back to something they enjoy. Hanging with the guys. As the hookup culture has made women good for only one thing to a lot of men. And it’s not marriage. Or even spending time with a woman in a nonsexual way.

Politics 101

Democrats offered Enthusiastic Applause for Unsound Policy Proposals that have no Basis in Reality

President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address was a little longer than an hour. But if you didn’t look at a clock it felt a lot longer. For it was the same tripe you hear all the time from this administration. And the political left. It was full of misleading statements. Inaccurate facts and figures. And some lies. The usual stuff you expect from the liberal left. But what was really disturbing was the enthusiastic applause for some really unsound policy proposals that have no basis in reality. Showing either how clueless these enthusiastic Democrats are about economics, business, national security, etc. Or how amoral they are in their quest for power. As they judge and implement policy not by how it will improve the lives of Americans. But how it will improve their lives in government.

If there was ever an example of what people not to have in power this state of the union theater was it. Following are excerpts from President Obama’s speech (see FULL TRANSCRIPT: Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address posted 1/28/2014 on The Washington Post). Comments and analysis follow each excerpt.

And here are the results of your efforts: the lowest unemployment rate in over five years; a rebounding housing market — (applause) — a manufacturing sector that’s adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s — (applause) — more oil produced — more oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world, the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years — (applause) — our deficits cut by more than half; and for the first time — (applause) — for the first time in over a decade, business leaders around the world have declared that China is no longer the world’s number one place to invest; America is.

The total number of people who left the civilian labor force since President Obama took office is 11,301,000 (see The BLS Employment Situation Summary for December 2013 posted 1/13/2014 on PITHOCRATES). Which means the unemployment rate is meaningless. The only reason why it’s falling is that the BLS doesn’t count unemployed people who gave up looking for jobs that just aren’t there. Oil production on private land may be up. While overall oil consumption is down because of the Great Recession that just won’t end. Which is helping to keep gas prices down. Unemployed people just don’t have the money to buy gas. So they don’t. Greatly reducing the demand for gas. Thus reducing gas prices and oil imports. George W. Bush’s last deficit was $498.37 billion. President Obama’s first deficit was $1,539.22 billion. And it was over $1 trillion in 2010, 2011 and 2012. It fell to $680 billion in 2013 thanks to the sequester. But the deficit is larger now than when President Obama assumed office. The only reduction in the deficit is a reduction in the amount he increased it.

Now, as president, I’m committed to making Washington work better, and rebuilding the trust of the people who sent us here.

Really? You’re committed to rebuilding the trust of the people? Mr. “If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance. Period.” Otherwise known as the lie of the year. You’re going to rebuild the trust of the people? Good luck with that. What with your pants on fire and all.

Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by; let alone to get ahead. And too many still aren’t working at all.

Well, finally something Republicans can agree with the president about. Yes, his economic policies have benefitted Wall Street. While hurting Main Street. Finally some bipartisan agreement.

So let’s make that decision easier for more companies. Both Democrats and Republicans have argued that our tax code is riddled with wasteful, complicated loopholes that punish businesses investing here, and reward companies that keep profits abroad. Let’s flip that equation. Let’s work together to close those loopholes, end those incentives to ship jobs overseas, and lower tax rates for businesses that create jobs right here at home. (Cheers, applause.)

There are only a few reasons why businesses export jobs. And the big three are taxes, regulations and labor costs. The Obama administration wants to raise taxes. They’ve increased regulatory costs. And they support costly union labor. So everything they stand for encourages businesses to export jobs.

But — but I’ll act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible. (Applause.)

So how’s that approval for the Keystone XL pipeline coming along? That thing you’ve been studying since 2010? Which by the laws of arithmetic is approximately 4 years ago. Is this slashing bureaucracy and streamlining the permitting process? At this rate it would probably be quicker to elect a Republican president in 2016. You know, someone who, when it comes to economic activity, walks it while the Democrats only talk it.

We also have the chance, right now, to beat other countries in the race for the next wave of high-tech manufacturing jobs. And my administration’s launched two hubs for high-tech manufacturing in Raleigh, North Carolina, and Youngstown, Ohio, where we’ve connected businesses to research universities that can help America lead the world in advanced technologies.

Universities are in the grant business. They want as many grants as they can get to help bring money into the university. And to do so they will study anything the government wants them to. No matter how wasteful it is. While some of the biggest high-tech companies started in garages. Apple, Google, Hewlett Packard and Microsoft. To name a few. Yes, there is a lot of university-driven research. But the big innovation is more entrepreneurial. Created by people thinking up new stuff no one thought of yet. Which is the last thing you want government involved in. That same government that can’t build a website using 1990s technology.

Let’s do more to help the entrepreneurs and small business owners who create most new jobs in America. Over the past five years, my administration has made more loans to small business owners than any other. And when 98 percent of our exporters are small businesses, new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help them create even more jobs. We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers, protect our environment and open new markets to new goods stamped “Made in the USA.” (Applause.)

You want to help entrepreneurs and small business? Get rid of Obamacare. And slash tax rates. This will provide incentive. And allow them to reinvest more of their earnings to grow their business. Allowing them to create those jobs.

Now, one of the biggest factors in bringing more jobs back is our commitment to American energy. The “all the above” energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today America is closer to energy independence than we have been in decades. (Applause.)

‘All of the above’ as long as it isn’t coal, oil or nuclear. But if it’s solar power and wind power they are committed to giving more tax dollars to their friends and bundlers in the green energy industry.

Meanwhile, my administration will keep working with the industry to sustain production and jobs growth while strengthening protection of our air, our water, our communities. And while we’re at it, I’ll use my authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations. (Applause.)

You can’t sustain production and jobs growth by strengthening protection of our air, water and pristine federal lands. That’s just more regulatory costs. And raising energy costs by not allowing any oil or natural gas production on those pristine federal lands. Raising energy costs by restricting supply. Which raises business costs. In addition to those new regulatory costs.

Every four minutes another American home or business goes solar, every panel pounded into place by a worker whose job can’t be outsourced. Let’s continue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don’t need it so we can invest more in fuels of the future that do. (Cheers, applause.)

That says it all. Fossil fuels don’t need subsidies because their costs are affordable. While solar (and wind power) are so costly that they are unaffordable. Unless government heavily subsidizes them.

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. (Applause.) And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did. (Cheers, applause.)

There is no such thing as settled science. Only science that has yet to be disproved. Besides, once upon a time glaciers stretched down from the poles to near the equator. And then receded back to where they are now. All without any manmade carbon in the atmosphere to warm the planet. As we were still simple hunter and gatherers then. So if the glaciers moved more before there was manmade global warming they’ll move again regardless of what man is doing to warm the planet.

Finally, if we’re serious about economic growth, it is time to heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, law enforcement — and fix our broken immigration system. (Cheers, applause.) Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have acted, and I know that members of both parties in the House want to do the same. Independent economists say immigration reform will grow our economy and shrink our deficits by almost $1 trillion in the next two decades. And for good reason: When people come here to fulfill their dreams — to study, invent, contribute to our culture — they make our country a more attractive place for businesses to locate and create jobs for everybody. So let’s get immigration reform done this year. (Cheers, applause.) Let’s get it done. It’s time.

Funny how that argument doesn’t apply to birth control and abortion. The reason we need to “fix our broken immigration system.” For if we were having babies at the rate when government created the welfare state we could pay for that welfare state today. But thanks to the Sixties, birth control, abortion and feminism women stopped having babies. Which is fine if a woman doesn’t want to. But the progressives designed the welfare state based on them being baby machines. Creating a greater number of taxpayers with each generation. So more people pay into the welfare state than collect from it. The way it must be for a Ponzi scheme to work.

That’s why I’ve been asking CEOs to give more long-term unemployed workers a fair shot at new jobs, a new chance to support their families. And in fact, this week many will come to the White House to make that commitment real.

When you raise the cost of labor (union labor, Obamacare, etc.) businesses tend to look at automating production instead of hiring that costly labor. They may not be able to do anything about the higher regulatory costs but they can do something about higher labor costs. Use more machines than people. If you want CEOs to create new jobs stop making labor so costly. And you can start with getting rid of Obamacare.

Of course, it’s not enough to train today’s workforce. We also have to prepare tomorrow’s workforce, by guaranteeing every child access to a world-class education. (Applause.)…

Five years ago we set out to change the odds for all our kids. We worked with lenders to reform student loans, and today more young people are earning college degrees than ever before. Race to the Top, with the help of governors from both parties, has helped states raise expectations and performance. Teachers and principals in schools from Tennessee to Washington, D.C., are making big strides in preparing students with the skills for the new economy — problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering, math.

Yes, more kids are going to college than ever before. But they’re going there to have fun. And to facilitate their fun many are getting easy, worthless degrees in the social sciences and humanities. Costly degrees that universities sold them promising them future riches. Enriching the university. While impoverishing their graduates. For a high-tech company has no use for these degrees. Which is why a lot of these people end up in jobs they didn’t need that costly degree to do. And our high-tech companies are using the visa program to get foreigners who have the skills they want. Problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering and math.

It requires everything from more challenging curriculums and more demanding parents to better support for teachers and new ways to measure how well our kids think, not how well they can fill in a bubble on a test. But it is worth it — and it is working.

If you want kids to do better we need to champion marriage and family more. And they should embrace religion a little more. Instead of encouraging our young women to use birth control and abortion to avoid marriage and family. And pulling every last vestige of religion from our lives. Kids growing up in a household with a mother and a father who go to church do far better on average than kids growing up in a single-parent household and don’t go to church (see Strong families steeped in Conservative Values and Traditions do Well in America posted 1/11/2014 on PITHOCRATES).

Research shows that one of the best investments we can make in a child’s life is high-quality early education. (Applause.) Last year, I asked this Congress to help states make high-quality pre-K available to every 4-year-old. And as a parent as well as a president, I repeat that request tonight.

Actually, research doesn’t show that. Yet they keep saying that. For it’s like that line in the musical Evita, “Get them while they’re young, Evita. Get them while they’re young.” The sooner they can take them away from their parents the sooner they can start turning them into Democrat voters. Such as teaching them to blame their parents for the manmade global warming that is killing the polar bears as they have no ice to rest on while eating their baby seals.

You know, today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.

Women deserve equal pay for equal work. (Cheers, applause.)

Actually, it’s closer to 91 cents (see The White House’s use of data on the gender wage gap by Glenn Kessler posted 6/5/2012 on The Washington Post). And the small difference is not due to discrimination but personal choice. When you look at aggregate wages women will make less than men. Because more women are teachers (with 3 month off without pay) than men are. Some women work fewer hours at work to spend more time with their children. While men tend to work more overtime. Men also work the more dangerous and higher paying jobs. And are more likely to belong to a union. When you compare childless, single men and women with a college degree some women are actually earning more than men. Figures don’t lie but liars figure. And for the contortions the Obama administration did here The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker gave the president one Pinocchio.

Now, women hold a majority of lower-wage jobs, but they’re not the only ones stifled by stagnant wages. Americans understand that some people will earn more money than others, and we don’t resent those who, by virtue of their efforts, achieve incredible success. That’s what America’s all about. But Americans overwhelmingly agree that no one who works full-time should ever have to raise a family in poverty. (Applause.)

In the year since I asked this Congress to raise the minimum wage, five states have passed laws to raise theirs.

You’re not going to have a lot of upward mobility when you pay people more to remain in the jobs they hate. All the talk about making college more affordable and bringing employers and community colleges together to help give people the skills they need to fill the jobs employers have is all for nothing if they just pay people more for doing an entry-level job.

Let’s do more to help Americans save for retirement. Today most workers don’t have a pension. A Social Security check often isn’t enough on its own. And while the stock market has doubled over the last five years, that doesn’t help folks who don’t have 401(k)s. That’s why tomorrow I will direct the Treasury to create a new way for working Americans to start their own retirement savings: MyRA. It’s a — it’s a new savings bond that encourages folks to build a nest egg.

Once upon a time people opened a savings account at their local bank and they saved to buy a house. And they saved for their retirement. That’s how people saved when they didn’t have a pension or a 401(k). They can’t do that today because of the Federal Reserve destroying the banking industry by keeping interest rates at zero. If the Fed stopped printing money and let investment capital come from our savings like they did before the Keynesians gave us the Federal Reserve people would be saving like we once did. And we’d stop having Great Depressions, stagflation and Great Recessions. Created by their prolonging the growth side of the business cycle. Which raises prices higher than they normally would go. Making the contraction side of the business cycle that much more painful. As those prices have a much longer way to fall than they normally would. Thanks to the Fed’s meddling with interest rates.

MyRA guarantees a decent return with no risk of losing what you put in. And if this Congress wants to help, work with me to fix an upside-down tax code that gives big tax breaks to help the wealthy save, but does little or nothing for middle-class Americans, offer every American access to an automatic IRA on the job, so they can save at work just like everybody in this chamber can.

You know why they want these MyRAs? Because they can’t stand people saving money. They love Social Security. Because they can borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund. Which is what they will do with these MyRAs. They will take this money and spend it. Filling the MyRA Trust Fund with a bunch of IOUs. Just like they do with the Social Security Trust Fund. And then provide a retirement benefit like Social Security. That is too small to live on. Whereas if we saved the money ourselves our retirement nest-egg will be much larger. And it will provide for our retirement. Unlike Social Security.

And since the most important investment many families make is their home, send me legislation that protects taxpayers from footing the bill for a housing crisis ever again, and keeps the dream of homeownership alive for future generations. (Applause.)

It was Bill Clinton that set the stage for the subprime mortgage crisis with his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending (see Bill Clinton created the subprime mortgage crisis with his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending posted 11/6/2011 on PITHOCRATES). Using the heavy hand of government to get lenders to qualify the unqualified. Then the Fed’s artificially low interest rates were the bait for the trap. Enticing people to borrow huge sums of money because those interest rates were just too good to pass up. Even if they weren’t planning to buy a house to begin with. The subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting Great Recession were government made. If we want to prevent the taxpayers from footing the bill for another housing crisis we need to get the Keynesians out of government.

Already, because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 3 million Americans under age 26 have gained coverage under their parents’ plans. (Applause.)

More than 9 million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage — 9 million. (Applause.)

The Washington Post gave this lie three Pinocchios (see Warning: Ignore claims that 3.9 million people signed up for Medicaid because of Obamacare by Glenn Kessler posted 1/16/2014 on The Washington Post). For they’re counting some 3.9 million who would have signed up anyway for Medicaid regardless of the Affordable Care Act. Also, the government was counting people who put a health care plan into their shopping cart as if they signed up for it. Which many couldn’t. As they haven’t programmed the back end of the health care website yet to actually accept payment or to pass that information on to the insurers.

And here’s another number: zero. Because of this law, no American, none, zero, can ever again be dropped or denied coverage for a pre-existing condition like asthma or back pain or cancer. (Cheers, applause.) No woman can ever be charged more just because she’s a woman. (Cheers, applause.) And we did all this while adding years to Medicare’s finances, keeping Medicare premiums flat and lowering prescription costs for millions of seniors.

That’s right. Women with reproductive systems that men don’t have won’t pay more for their health insurance than men pay for theirs. How can they do that? Simple. They just are charging men more. To cover the cost of a reproductive system they don’t have.

Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day. I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say “we are not afraid,” and I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters and our shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook. (Applause.)

If you take away guns from law-abiding gun owners that won’t keep dangerous people with mental health issues that want to harm people out of our movie theaters, our shopping malls or schools like Sandy Hook. For there are other ways to harm people. Just look at the Boston Marathon bombers. The people he’s talking about not only had mental health issues but they were also smart. Many were even college students. Who probably could think of other ways to hurt people. And you just can’t take away everything they might use to harm people. But you can place these people somewhere where they can’t harm anyone.

You see, in a world of complex threats, our security, our leadership depends on all elements of our power — including strong and principled diplomacy. American diplomacy has rallied more than 50 countries to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands, and allowed us to reduce our own reliance on Cold War stockpiles.

Since President Obama assumed office he did nothing to support the Green Revolution in Iran. Which kept the hard-line Islamists in power there. He gave Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood by telling Hosni Mubarak that he had to go. Removing the stable anchor of the Middle East. And moved Egypt closer to Iran. (The Egyptian people eventually rose up to overthrow the oppressive Muslim Brotherhood). He went to war in Libya and helped to overthrow Colonel Muammar Qaddafi. Who at the time was a quasi ally in the War on Terror. After the Iraq invasion frightened him into believing he may be next. President Obama was thanked for his Libyan war by al Qaeda with 4 dead Americans in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11. He waited too long to act in the Syrian civil war. Which only brought al Qaeda into the conflict. He failed to attain a status of forces agreement in Iraq. So he pulled all U.S. forces out of Iraq which has only invited al Qaeda in. And it looks like this will be repeated in Afghanistan. He blamed George W. Bush’s wars as recruitment tools for al Qaeda. While his extensive drone use is doing the same thing. Especially in Yemen. The hotbed of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. All that his diplomacy and leadership has done was to make the world a more dangerous place.

American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated. (Applause.) And we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve — a future free of dictatorship, terror and fear.

His diplomacy with Bashar al-Assad in Syria only gave his oppressive regime legitimacy in the civil war he was raging against his people. Making it easier for Assad to kill Syrians with conventional arms while he gives up a token amount of his chemical weapons. While also making Russia who brokered the deal the dominate player in the region.

And it is American diplomacy, backed by pressure, that has halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program — and rolled back parts of that program — for the very first time in a decade. As we gather here tonight, Iran has begun to eliminate its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium.

It’s not installing advanced centrifuges. Unprecedented inspections help the world verify every day that Iran is not building a bomb. And with our allies and partners, we’re engaged in negotiations to see if we can peacefully achieve a goal we all share: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

All Iran is doing is pausing their program. And chemically altering some of their enriched uranium to meet the requirements of this diplomatic deal. But this chemical process is reversible. And they will reverse it once they get what they want. This deal makes the world no safer. If anything it makes it more dangerous. For it does not diminish the Iranian nuclear program in the least. But gives them more time to work on it as they prop up their regime with much needed supplies thanks to a relaxation of the sanctions against them.

These negotiations will be difficult; they may not succeed. We are clear-eyed about Iran’s support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, which threaten our allies; and we’re clear about the mistrust between our nations, mistrust that cannot be wished away. But these negotiations don’t rely on trust; any long-term deal we agree to must be based on verifiable action that convinces us and the international community that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb. If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today. (Applause.)

The sanctions that we put in place helped make this opportunity possible. But let me be clear: if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it. (Applause.) For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed.

The Soviet Union never attacked U.S. soil. And there was a reason they didn’t. They were rational. And knew they would lose a great deal in a war with America. Especially a nuclear one. Which is why they never used their nuclear weapons. But Iran giving a nuclear weapon to a shadowy group that is not a state? With little to lose in using a nuclear weapon? If it’s not a nuclear missile there will be no way in knowing where the nuclear bomb came from. We can have our suspicions that Iran made it and gave it to someone. But do we nuke Iran over that? What if there are more nukes in the hands of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, etc.? You could nuke Iran back to the Stone Age but it won’t stop those others being used. The president insists this will not happen as Iran signed an agreement. The only problem with that is the Iranians are liars. And they call the United States the Great Satan. These two facts suggest that replacing those sanctions with a promise not to build nuclear bombs was probably not a wise trade.

But for more than two hundred years, we have put those things aside and placed our collective shoulder to the wheel of progress: to create and build and expand the possibilities of individual achievement; to free other nations from tyranny and fear; to promote justice and fairness and equality under the law, so that the words set to paper by our founders are made real for every citizen.

Use our collective shoulder to expand individual achievement? The president believes in the former more than the latter. He didn’t help the Iranians get free from tyranny when he had the chance. And he turned the Egyptian people over to tyranny. The Muslim Brotherhood. Who were oppressing women and Christians. Fairness and equality under the law? Ask those Tea Party groups who were targeted by the IRS about fairness and equality under the law. The Constitution? That document of negative rights? The left hates it. And insists it’s a living document that can evolve over time to suit the needs of an expanding government. So they can do exactly what the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to prevent from happening.

The Left endorses Unsound Policy Proposals with no Basis in Reality to improve their Chances of Winning Elections

The country is more conservative than liberal (see Liberal Self-Identification Edges Up to New High in 2013 by Jeffrey M. Jones posted 1/10/2014 on Gallup). Which is why liberals want state-funded pre-K to start indoctrinating our children as soon as possible. To get them away from their parents so they can begin the process of turning them into Democrat voters. It’s why kids are getting worthless social science and humanities degrees. To further indoctrinate them. Because their views are minority views. So they need to play loose with the facts. And lie. Which is easier to do with indoctrinated kids than educated adults. You’ll even hear Democrats talk about lowering the voting age. To get a few more years of voting out of these kids before they grow old and wise. And begin voting conservative. So they do what they can to dumb down education. Lie. Cheat. And buy as many votes as they can by giving away free stuff. And the thing they really want to give away is citizenship for illegal aliens. Who they are sure will be forever grateful. And show it by voting Democrat.

This explains the enthusiastic applause for unsound policy proposals that have no basis in reality. For the left is not interested in improving the lives of Americans. They just want to improve their chances of winning elections.

Week in Review

Proponents of same-sex marriage say there is no difference with it and traditional marriage. And that same-sex couples can be parents just as traditional couples can. There’s just the matter of getting a child. As a same-sex couple cannot conceive a child. But as long as women give up their unwanted babies for adoption instead of aborting them a same-sex couple should be able to adopt a child. Or a lesbian couple could find a sperm donor (see Court: Marotta is a father, not merely a sperm donor by Steve Fry posted 1/22/2014 on cjonline).

A Topeka man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is the presumptive father to a baby one of the woman bore and is subject to paying child support, a Shawnee County District Court judge ruled Wednesday.

In her written decision, District Court Judge Mary Mattivi said that because William Marotta and the same-sex couple failed to secure the services of a physician during the artificial insemination process, he wasn’t entitled to the same protections given other sperm donors under Kansas law…

Marotta contended he was only a sperm donor to a same-sex couple seeking a child, but the Kansas Department for Children and Families argued he is a father who owes child support to his daughter. The girl is 4 years old…

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have Marotta declared the father of a girl Schreiner bore in 2009.

Marotta opposed the action, saying he didn’t intend to be the child’s father, and that he had signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities while agreeing to donate sperm in a plastic cup to Schreiner and Angela Bauer, who was then her partner. Marotta contacted the women after they placed a Craigslist ad seeking a sperm donor.

The state has been seeking to have Marotta declared the child’s father so he can be responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support.

This makes a good case against same-sex couple adoption. For without a blood tie to the baby it is apparently easy to walk away from it. Even if one made a commitment to raise a child together. Like with this lesbian couple. The partner to the mother of the baby left. Without providing for that baby. So the mother and baby became wards of the state. Which is why the state went after the sperm donor for child support. Even though he had an agreement with the lesbian couple that he would have no responsibility for their child.

There are strict guidelines for adopting a baby. To make sure the child goes to a good home. With parents who have the financial wherewithal to raise a child. Apparently there is no such requirement for the donation of sperm. Which can place a child in a home with parents who do not have the financial wherewithal to raise a child. At least it would appear so.

A marriage between a man and a woman is about children. To conceive and bring children into the world. In a partnership that facilitates the raising of children. To give them a last name. A stay-at-home mother gets added to her husband’s employer benefits. So she can stay at home and work without pay while being covered by her working husband’s benefits. Where a mother and a father can both raise their children. Each teaching them what they uniquely can. Giving them as complete a childhood as possible. Tied forever to their children by blood. This is what marriage is for. Children. All the employer benefits of marriage. All the legal advantages of marriage. All the tax advantages of marriage. They’re all there for one reason. To facilitate the raising of children. So parents raise their children. And not the state.

Week in Review

The left everywhere in the world fights back against the Old World Puritanism of conservatives. Who want to do nothing but oppress women in monogamous marriages. Where a man pledges to have and behold from this day on, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; until death do us part. Need one say anymore to prove that there is a war on women? Just imagine the difficulty of placing the wedding band on the sloped-brow Neanderthal she’s marrying. Having to lift those scarred knuckles up from the floor. That he just dragged across the floor to get to the altar.

It’s a frightening image. Marriage. A man pledging his undying love to a woman. You can see why the left rails against such an archaic view of women. For unlike conservatives liberals liberate women. They give them birth control and abortion. So a woman can go from man to man with the frequency of a cheap ham radio (a line borrowed from the Saturday Night Live Point Counter Point sketch with Jane Curtain and Dan Aykroyd). This is the modern woman the left wants. A sexual being. To be enjoyed sexually. Not oppressed in a monogamous marriage. Where she’ll never be able to enjoy true freedom. Like this (see Push is on for strip clubs to take advantage of Supreme Court ruling on prostitution by Daniel Proussalidis posted 12/21/2013 on the Toronto Sun).

Strip clubs smell dollars and opportunity on the heels of a Supreme Court of Canada decision Friday to strike down key Criminal Code provisions.

The Adult Entertainment Association of Canada says it’s ready to provide “enhanced” services once brothels become legal in Canada…

Women’s activist Diane Watts says she’s not surprised to see this push now that the Supreme Court has ruled Canada’s bans on brothels, communicating for the purpose of prostitution and living off its profits are unconstitutional…

Instead of new laws, Lambrinos’s group says strip clubs that are already regulated by cities quality for “enhanced licences” to allow them to offer more than naked people and lap dances.

Watts says fully legalized prostitution will mean higher demand for hookers and “increased trafficking from countries where women are more vulnerable.”

A 2010 RCMP human trafficking threat assessment found strip clubs are already part of the problem.

“Exotic dance clubs, or strip clubs, have been associated with human trafficking of foreign nationals in Canada since the late 1990s, when the number of migrant dancers from Eastern Europe increased dramatically,” said the assessment.

Little girls dream of ponies. Prince Charming carrying her away. And fairytale weddings. Where a man pledges to have and behold from this day on, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; until death do us part. Not to grow up to dance naked in a strip bar one day to entertain men. Or to earn a living prostituting themselves as they pleasure men. And no parent raising their daughter ever hoped that she will be able to dance naked one day for the entertainment of men. Or to prostitute herself to pleasure men. Not even liberals. Yet they will create the world that makes this possible. And likely. For stripping and prostitution offers a way for single mothers to make a lot of money in the short working hours they have available around raising their kids. Something else no little girl dreamed about in her childhood.

Anyone suggesting women should withhold their most intimate selves until their wedding night will be called prudes. Anyone who urges that women at least enter monogamous relationships with someone who wants more than a one-night stand (aka a hookup) will also be called a prude. So these young women will be sexually active. Giving away their most intimate selves to men who think of them as only sexual objects. Because it’s fun. And the left has them believing that they are being enlightened and modern and so unlike their prudish parents by objectifying themselves to pleasure as many men as possible.

Fundamental Truth

Liberals help Women delay Living Happily Ever After as Long as Possible

Conservatives believe in customs. And traditions. Those things that are tried and true. Like the institution of marriage. The foundation of the family. Where a man and a woman pledge their love to each other. To have and to hold. From the day of their wedding forward. For better. For worse. For richer. For poorer. In sickness and health. To love and to cherish. Till death do they part. All the while living happily ever after. As husband and wife.

Conservatives do not believe chivalry is dead. Conservative men still place women on pedestals. They stand up when a lady enters the room. Holds her chair for her. If it’s raining or cold outside a conservative will give his coat to her. And open and close the door for her. A conservative will shield her from danger. And protect her honor. Always treating her like a lady.

A liberal feminist woman, on the other hand, will say, “Don’t you dare open that door for me.” For she is fiercely independent. And wants nothing to do with chivalry. She wants to be treated like a man. Liberals, in fact, want women to have a career first then maybe consider getting married. Or having children. And not have the fairytale wedding all girls dream about. Looking forward to the day when her Prince Charming will come along. And sweep her off her feet. No. Liberals want to kill that dream. And kill all romance. Giving women birth control, access to abortion and the morning-after pill so she can avoid living happily ever after as long as possible.

Liberals believe being a Part-Time Mother is Good Enough

Conservatives don’t like high taxes. Because a generation ago taxes were low enough that most everyone could raise a family on a single income. But with the rise of the welfare state taxes have steadily risen. Taking more and more of our paychecks. Making it difficult for a woman to stay at home and be a full-time mother. Which is why, today, many women are forced to be part-time mothers. So they can earn a second income. So they have enough left over in their paychecks after paying for the welfare state.

The family is the center of the conservative’s world. Which is why they work hard to establish a career. And vote to keep the tax bite as small as possible. So they can afford to buy a house. And begin raising their family. With the mother staying home to be a full-time mother. To give her children the best possible of all childhoods. Having all of their material needs met. A nurturing environment. Created by a loving father and mother. Who teach their children the customs and traditions that their parents taught them. And help them with their school work so they get the best possible education. So they, too, will one day be able to earn enough to raise their own family.

Liberals, though, believe in childcare. In fact, they want state-funded childcare so women can return to work as soon as possible after having their children. Leaving part of the raising and nurturing of their children to strangers. As if children are a burden. Like cutting the grass. Something that they can farm out to other people. As a working mother has better and more important things to do. Like earning a paycheck. Which is why liberals want state-funded childcare. Because they believe being a part-time mother is good enough. A working mother’s children may disagree with that. But liberals are old-fashioned in this one respect. They believe children should be seen and not heard.

Liberals encourage Women to stay Strong, Independent and Alone

Conservative policies tend to favor families. They promote families. While liberal policies make the family obsolete. By trying to make husbands and fathers obsolete. Liberal policies allow a woman to build a career instead of a family. Birth control, access to abortion and the morning-after pill allow her to engage in consequence-free sex. Liberal policies enable so many women to give it away for free that men see no reason to marry them. Women earn their own money. And with no children there’s no need for a woman to get married. So she can stay strong and independent. And alone.

Of course, today, there are a lot of women starting their families in their forties. As they’ve discovered they want more than just to be strong, independent and alone. They want a family. They want children. Their own children. Before it’s too late for them to have children. As waiting too long physically complicates things both for the mother and the child. And there can be some emotional issues. For a young child entering school with a 50-year old mother will be different from other children who have parents in their twenties. And when they graduate high school their parents will be ‘grandparent’ age. Perhaps not being there for their children when they start raising their own families.

Conservative policies foster the bonds between parents and children. And grandchildren. While liberal polices weaken these bonds. By encouraging a woman to exchange a career and casual sex for marriage and a family. Who may later in life discover that she wants to be married and raise a family. But because she was a devoted follower of devout liberal feminist dogma those things are harder now. And most likely she will have to do them alone. As the men these women rejected to pursue their career likely found other women who wanted to get married and raise a family. And even if those marriages didn’t last happily ever after they probably have grown children from it. And may not be interested in doing it all over again. As their children may still be consuming a large percentage of their paycheck. Especially if they’re going to college.

And yet with every election cycle it is the conservatives that hate women and children. Not the people that are destroying women’s lives by telling them to forget their silly childhood dreams of meeting prince charming, having the beautiful wedding and raising children. Instead they should stay strong, independent and alone. Forcing many women to miss or delay the greatest experience of their lives. Raising their family.

Week in Review

The political left is ruining the country. Every time they get into power they leave a swath of destruction in their wake. And we hear the same things over and over again. The plans these people have to fix the things they’ve destroyed. We heard Jimmy Carter. And now we’re hearing the same things from President Obama. But they’re just empty words. For if things get worse while you’re in office it’s you. Not everything else (see Exclusive: 4 in 5 in US face near-poverty, no work by Hope Yen, Associated Press, posted 7/28/2013 on Yahoo! Finance).

Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.

The findings come as President Barack Obama tries to renew his administration’s emphasis on the economy, saying in recent speeches that his highest priority is to “rebuild ladders of opportunity” and reverse income inequality.

Renew his emphasis on the economy? To renew something you had to have done something first. The president is in his 5th year in office. And all he’s done is implement policies that has discouraged job creation. Obamacare is causing employers to freeze hiring and push some employees to part time. Obamacare, then, has increased joblessness. And forcing people into lower-paying part-time jobs has increased poverty.

Shutting down the oil business in the Gulf of Mexico destroyed good-paying jobs in the oil business. Refusing to approve the Keystone XL pipeline has prevented the creating of good-paying construction jobs. And the additional good-paying jobs in the oil business that would have processed this new oil coming to American refineries and out into the distribution network.

The president’s war on coal is shuttering coal mines. And destroying good-paying jobs in the mining industry. And moving away from cost-efficient coal-fired power plants has increased the cost of electric power for businesses and households. Something else to put pressure on hiring. Leading to more joblessness. And poverty.

Things have gotten worse during the Obama presidency because of his anti-business policies. When you have anti-business policies you don’t create an environment for job creation. Which is the source of all of our problems. People can’t get a good-paying full-time job because President Obama is destroying them. And if that wasn’t bad enough, liberal Democrat policies make a bad situation worse.

Marriage rates are in decline across all races, and the number of white mother-headed households living in poverty has risen to the level of black ones.

“It’s time that America comes to understand that many of the nation’s biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position,” said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty. He noted that despite continuing economic difficulties, minorities have more optimism about the future after Obama’s election, while struggling whites do not…

For the first time since 1975, the number of white single-mother households living in poverty with children surpassed or equaled black ones in the past decade, spurred by job losses and faster rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites. White single-mother families in poverty stood at nearly 1.5 million in 2011, comparable to the number for blacks. Hispanic single-mother families in poverty trailed at 1.2 million.

The political left won’t tell kids to stop having so much sex. In fact, they’re facilitating it. By giving free condoms to high school kids. Making abortion available on demand. And even providing the morning-after pill to any girl regardless of age without a prescription or parental notification. Because kids are going to have sex no matter what we say. A message heard loud and clear by our kids. Who are having a lot of sex. Hooking up to satisfy their needs. Then going on their way. Seeing no need to get married. Especially the guys. Who never had it better.

The enlightened attitude of the political left has made it a veritable smorgasbord out there. Objectifying women like never before. Where men look at women as sexual flavors. And wonder what they feel like tonight. This is the hookup. And it isn’t conducive to making long-lasting relationships. These guys don’t even want to talk to these women. They want to take care of their business. And leave. Returning to their male friends. Where they can enjoy the things they really like once their sexual needs are satisfied.

This is why marriage rates are declining. Because with the left’s objectification of women what’s the point of marrying them? This is the world a girl finds herself in after getting pregnant. And doesn’t want to get an abortion. She is on her own. And there is no faster way to poverty than being a young, single mother. If she doesn’t graduate from high school or can’t go on to college because she has to raise a baby what chance does she have? While others are getting an education she is working a job that doesn’t require an education. When her high school classmates are graduating from college she is still working that same job. Because she missed out on getting the college education that could have given her a career with a high-paying job. Instead working a job that requires no advanced education. The kind that doesn’t pay well. Because they’re often entry-level. The kind high school kids work. And those in college. Who then quit these jobs to begin the career they went to college for. But what a single mother can’t do. Because without that education she doesn’t have that option.

The obvious solution to this problem is for these girls to wait for marriage before having a baby. When a parent can stay at home with the baby while the other is building a career that lifts them out of the poverty level. If the left would stop objectifying women people will stop hooking up and get married instead. To build a career. And a family. Instead of just giving in to their base impulses and enjoying the moment. And living a life of abject poverty. For like the old saying goes, good things come to those who wait. And if you wait until marriage before having children life will be so much better than life as a single mother. As the data shows.

Week in Review

The hardest thing about divorce is the children. Who gets custody? Who pays child support. And who pays alimony? A woman may give up a career to be a stay-at-home mom. To raise a family. Which is more difficult than going to a job 5 days a week. Because you’re on-call 24/7. And you’re responsible for more than just numbers on a ledger. You’re now responsible for human life. As well as numbers on a ledger.

In a divorce two things don’t change. Someone still has to raise the children. And someone still has to pay the bills. Which is where child support and alimony come in. So the children don’t suffer more than they have to by seeing their parents split up. They can still have a full-time parent. Typically the mother who gave up her career to run a household. While the father visits occasionally. And pays the bills. This is the marriage contract. And the divorce contract that often replaces the marriage contract.

This is what traditional marriage is. The legal institution that facilitates the family. And doesn’t leave the children or their mother out in the cold should the marriage fail. It protects them. And provides for them. So they won’t be disadvantaged in their life because their parents divorced. Getting the same opportunity to succeed in life as everyone else. Things that are not issues in same-sex unions. Because same-sex couples cannot bring new life into the world. Which eliminates most if not all of the need of a marriage contract. Yet they want it. And they are getting married (see Jane Lynch Files For Divorce From Wife Lara Embry by Joyce Chen posted 7/12/2013 on US Weekly).

Just one month after announcing that she and her wife of three years, Dr. Lara Embry, are going their separate ways, Jane Lynch has officially filed for divorce in an L.A. County Court, TMZ reports…

According to the legal documents, the couple did not have a prenup, and will therefore split their marital assets 50/50. The pair have no children together (Embry has two daughters Haden and Chase).

Lynch is also filing to terminate the court’s jurisdiction to award Embry with spousal support, TMZ reports.

And they’re getting divorced.

There is nothing they could not have accomplished with legal contracts other than the marriage contract. If they had lived happily ever after and wanted to leave their estates to each other they could have stipulated that in their wills. But no. They were married. Now they’re getting divorced. And Lynch now gets to enjoy a privilege once reserved for traditional marriage. Spousal support. Even with couples that brought no new children into the world. Where both worked and had careers. But the one with the less-paid career got a taste of a lifestyle the better-paid career afforded. And now is entitled to continue that lifestyle after the divorce. Because of the marriage contract.

Unless you’re bringing new children into the world there really is no reason to get married. And our record high divorce rates would seem to indicate that a lot these people getting married (some more than once) probably shouldn’t have gotten married. But they did. And went through great transfers of wealth because of it. As any rich person who is not quite so rich anymore following a divorce will attest to. Especially when there are children involved.

Lynch wanted everything traditional marriage offered. Well, everything but one. She is fighting not to give half of everything she owns to her ex. And you can bet the next time she gets married, if there is a next time, there will be a prenup. Which are no longer the prerogative of foolish rich men marrying women young enough to be their granddaughters. Today they’re just good business. Especially when there are great disparities in wealth. Interestingly, had she not been able to get married she would have had everything she wanted after their breakup. To happily go their separate ways. Without losing half of all of her stuff. Something no doubt weighing heavily on her mind these days.

Politics 101

The Left sees Traditional Marriage as a way to make Women Cooks in the Kitchen and Whores in the Bedroom

What’s the difference between conservatives and liberals? Conservatives believe in the genius of the Founding Fathers and embrace the U.S. Constitution. Liberals constantly disparage the Founding Fathers as rich white men who owned slaves. And they bristle at the restraints the Constitution places on them. Conservatives believe in limited government. Liberals believe in big government. Privilege. And feel they are part of an aristocratic class who are exempt from the laws they do not like. Conservatives stand on principle. While liberals will sacrifice principle in the pursuit of power.

The Sixties gave us the Sexual Revolution. Where sex outside of marriage was not only okay it was better. Hippies put sex into everyday ordinary life. Where sex was as causal as an afternoon greeting. Contraception and women’s liberation made the Seventies swing. No one was getting married. They were just living together. And having a lot of sex. With a lot of different people. For it wasn’t the 1950s anymore. No. Women were no longer going to be sexually objectified or trapped into soul-sucking marriages. Which was all the institution of marriage did. Oppressed women.

The Seventies changed all of that. Women could be whatever they wanted to be. And sleep with whoever they wanted to sleep with. For they now had the pill. And when that failed they had abortion. It was truly a time for feminists. As they could be more sexualized than they had ever been before. Those who did get married could ‘swing’ with other married couples. That is, swap wives for sex. Feminists persuaded women to be independent. To have careers. Not to get married. Not to have children. For that would only subjugate them to some man. Where they would end up a cook in the kitchen. And a whore in the bedroom. Serving him. One man. And taking care of a long string of snot-nosed brats sucking the life out of them. This is how the left sees traditional marriage.

Laws encouraged Marriage to Provide more People to Till the Soil and more Soldiers to Defend the Land

So clearly the left had launched a war on the institution of marriage during the Sixties and Seventies. And beyond. For it was everything that was wrong with America. It destroyed a woman’s identity. She even lost her last name. No. It was better for a woman to remain free. And strong. To enjoy sex when she wanted to enjoy sex. Not only when society said she should. In the marital chamber. She should live alone. Or live with someone outside the institution of marriage. So she could remain free. She should have a career. And use birth control and abortion to terminate any pregnancy that could interfere with her career. To remove any reason to consider ever getting married. As well as enjoy the explosion of sexual transmitted diseases her new liberation gave her.

And yet as bad as marriage is the left is trying to make same-sex marriage a Constitutional right. Despite fighting to destroy the institution of marriage for some 3 decades or more. And still fights hard to help women avoid the institution and to keep her family tree a barren one. But when it comes to gays and lesbians who want to get married that changes everything. Marriage is then a beautiful institution where two people can profess their undying love to each other. And denying marital bliss to same-sex couples is discriminatory. Mean. And just plain medieval.

Conservatives oppose same-sex marriage because they don’t want to change the institution of marriage. Which has a tradition that dates back to the beginning of civilization. While there is no such tradition of same-sex marriage. Marriage created the family. Allowing a man and a woman to raise a family. So they can raise, provide for and nurture their children. For unlike most animals in nature whose young can go off on their own after a year or so the human race must spend years rearing their offspring. Which required two parents. One to raise and nurture. And one to provide. Marriage also provided for inheritance. To transfer property down generations. Marriage provided a last name to their children. In time religion entered the marriage ceremony. Adding more tradition. Then came laws to encourage people to marry and raise children. To expand the population. To provide more people to till the soil. And more soldiers to defend the land. As well as increasing the tax base.

The Left attacks the Culture and Traditions of the Political Opposition as they cannot Defeat Them in the Arena of Ideas

So the institution of marriage served many purposes. The most important was to raise children. Because if you couldn’t replace the people killed in battle or died from disease or famine countries would collapse. And because it took so long to rear children traditions and laws developed to facilitate child rearing. Some traditions go back thousands of years. While there is no comparative traditions for same-sex marriage. Or utilitarian purpose for same-sex marriage. Such as expanding the population.

But the left shows no respect for tradition. Unless it’s for a lost tribe in the Amazon that practices cannibalism and human sacrifice. No, that tradition they’ll respect with the reverence of religion. And actively oppose any interruption into their culture or traditions. Even if they are sacrificing young virgins. They’ll fight to protect their culture and tradition. But they have no such respect or reverence for the culture and traditions of Western Civilization.

So the left is many things. But one thing it is not is consistent when it comes to principle. They attack the institution of marriage for those who currently enjoy that institution. While embracing it for those who don’t have it. They will do whatever they can to prevent women from coming down with the ‘disease’ of pregnancy. While championing same-sex couple adoption. They have no tolerance or respect for culture and tradition. Unless it is culture and tradition not found in Western Civilization. Proving that everything to the left is political. And everything they do serves one purpose. To increase their power. And they do that by attacking the culture and traditions of the political opposition. Which they do to destroy them. As they cannot defeat them in the arena of ideas.

Politics 101

The Women’s Movement encouraged Women to Choose a Career over Having Babies

It is common for a married couple planning to have children to both work. To put as much money into the bank for a down payment on a house to raise their family in. In a nice neighborhood with good schools. After they buy that house and have their first child it is common for the woman to quit working to stay home and take care of their newborn child. And the other children they have. While the husband continues to work.

The women’s movement changed that. It encouraged women to have fewer babies (or none at all) and to have a career instead. Those who had children were encouraged to return to work as soon as possible. To just dump their kids into daycare and continue their careers. But it doesn’t always work that way. Sometimes a woman determined not to let her children interfere with her career has a change of heart after having her first child. Deciding not to return to work. Choosing to, instead, stay at home and raise her children. And not dump them into daycare.

This, of course, causes problems for employers. Making it more risky to hire women. Especially in this litigious world. They have to hold a woman’s job for her when she goes on maternity leaves. And if her job is a critical job, like doing payroll, others will have to split up her job responsibilities. Perhaps hiring a temp to pick up the less critical tasks (filing, answering phones, etc.). For mistakes in payroll do not make happy employees. And mistakes in payroll taxes can cause some very costly problems with the government. If a woman doesn’t plan on returning to work after having her baby the business can hire a new employee. And in her last weeks before leaving to have her child she can train her replacement for an orderly transfer of her responsibilities. Something she can’t do if she changes her mind while on maternity leave.

In the Marriage Contract the Wife gives up her Career to Raise the Children while her Husband provides Financial Support

This can be a reason why men earn more than women. Because there is less of a chance of his changing his mind to be a stay-at-home parent. It happens. But not as often as it happens with women. Because women have a biological clock ticking. Which can greatly influence her thinking on her long-held career plans. For a woman has to leave work to have a child. And to recover from the birth. Men don’t. Their lives can go on with little change. And because a woman has to take time off she spends more time bonding with her newborn child. Which is a powerful force. Mothers are very protective of their babies. And even though she had all intentions of returning to work having the welfare of her newborn dependent on her can change her best laid plans.

Of course, leaving the workforce not only affects her employer it affects the household budget. For that lost paycheck can make life more difficult at home. Forcing the new family to get by on less. Government understands this. And they design the tax code to help families raise children. Because the government needs people to have babies. And they need them to have more than two. For if they only have two the population will not continue to grow. These children will only replace their parents. Not expand the tax base to help pay for an expanding menu of government benefits going to an aging population. But having more than two children is very expensive. Which is why married families get a lot of deductions and credits in the tax code. To help offset the high cost of having children. So they will have more children.

And there are other legal issues and traditions to help families. Such as the baby’s last name. A woman may hyphenate her name when married. But you can’t do that with children. For in a generation or two a person’s name will grow so long with multiple hyphens that it will make it difficult to use on forms, to sign a contract or a check. Put on a nametag. Tradition has the father being the financial provider. As the father is not physically impacted by pregnancy. He can keep working. And providing. So giving the child the father’s last name makes it easy for the child to go through life. And makes it clear that the father is financially responsible for that child. Just like it’s a man’s work benefits that cover his wife and children. Because in the contract of marriage the wife gives up her career to do something more important. Raise their children. But she can only do that if her husband provides the income, the health care benefits, house, car, groceries, etc., the family needs.

If Same-Sex Marriage is about an Unfair Tax Code the Left could just vote Republican so we can Lower Taxes for Everyone

The institution of marriage developed to help a man and a woman raise children. Having children came first. People have been having children long before they even talked or used tools. Then civilization advanced. The economy grew more complex. This advanced civilization was costly. Especially when raising children. Then the institution of marriage came along to help families have children. Governments and business help families have and raise children. For we need families to have and raise children. Businesses need an expanding population. For a business needs more people to grow. To buy the goods and services of their expanding business. Just as government needs an expanding population. To pay the taxes to fund an expanding government. An expanding population translates into a growing and prosperous economy. And a growing and more generous government. Because the more people there are the more people government can tax.

Men and women have married without raising a family. Yet they still get some of the benefits we developed to help married people raise children. Such as one spouse being covered under the other’s employer’s health insurance benefit. Raising the business’ costs without providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost. And it’s the same for government. A married couple may get some favorable tax benefits that cost the government while not providing an expanding population benefit for this additional cost. So there is a short-term benefit for a childless marriage. The woman doesn’t leave the workforce. She builds her career and earns more income. Providing more tax revenue. But there is no long-term benefit. For when this couple leaves the workforce there will be no one to replace them. So while they start consuming Social Security and Medicare benefits they have not added new people to the workforce to pay for these.

Understanding how and why we have the institution of marriage makes the current same-sex marriage debate puzzling to say the least. For marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about lowering the cost of raising children. Which both business and government needs. For if couples don’t have more than two children then the population will no longer expand. And it will age. Making it more costly for government. While providing a shrinking customer base for businesses. A couple that does not bring new children into the world provides no return on the cost of the marriage benefits they receive. And a same-sex marriage will be no different than a childless marriage between a man and a woman. From an economic/government funding point of view. They will not help grow the economy. They will not lower the future cost of government. And there won’t be a legal or traditional need for giving a newborn child a last name. As they can’t procreate.

If procreation is out of the equation people can enter committed relationships without the institution of marriage. During the sexual revolution the Left belittled the institution of marriage and asked why anyone needed a piece of paper to sanction their love. And these people lived together flaunting convention. And tradition. Using birth control and the recently legalized abortion to make sure no children resulted from these new living arrangements. These marriage-less committed relationships. Now marriage is the number one issue of the Left. If it’s for same-sex couples the institution they hated and worked so hard to destroy is now the greatest thing in the world. And on top of everything else the Left, who supports higher taxes, are arguing that the tax code unfairly discriminates against same-sex couples. If that is the basis of this being a civil rights issue the Left could just vote Republican so we can lower taxes for everyone. Then they could have everything they want. The free love of the sexual revolution. Low taxes. And no reason to get married.